Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/06/2026 11:54 pm
TL;DR: Fragmented governance, risk, and compliance leaves access decisions, reviews, and remediation split across teams, creating blind spots that can undermine security and compliance, according to Zluri. The real issue is not process volume but disconnected ownership, because access control only works when review, accountability, and remediation operate as one system.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Access Management Governance Risk and Compliance: A Cohesive Approach
By the numbers:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
- 71% of NHIs are not rotated within recommended time frames, increasing the risk of compromise over time.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations connect access reviews to real remediation?
A: They should make review findings directly actionable through revoke, modify, or escalate paths that sit in the same workflow as the evidence.
Q: Why do fragmented GRC processes create identity risk?
A: Because risk, governance, and compliance work on different timelines when they are separated.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about access governance?
A: They often treat reports as the outcome rather than the starting point for correction.
Practitioner guidance
- Collapse review and remediation into one workflow Define access review so every exception can trigger revoke, modify, or escalate actions from the same control surface.
- Assign one owner for access control outcomes Make a single team accountable for how review findings become remediation, evidence, and executive reporting.
- Measure control effectiveness, not report volume Track how many access findings were resolved, how quickly they were closed, and whether the underlying entitlement gap reappeared in the next cycle.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The step-by-step GRC capability model and maturity levels used to assess current-state governance.
- The access review workflow that connects entitlement data, remediation actions, and executive reporting.
- How the platform structures revoke and modify playbooks after review.
- The reporting outputs that support audit evidence and compliance attestation.
👉 Read Zluri's article on access management governance, risk, and compliance →
Access management GRC: where governance, risk, and compliance break down?
Explore further
12/06/2026 8:48 am
Fragmented access management GRC is a governance failure before it is a tooling problem. The article correctly identifies siloed ownership as the root issue, because isolated security, compliance, and operational goals produce inconsistent access decisions. When review, accountability, and remediation are split, the organisation can no longer prove that access supports business objectives. Practitioners should treat that as a control design flaw, not a coordination annoyance.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 71% of NHIs are not rotated within recommended time frames, showing how quickly governance gaps become persistent exposure.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Which frameworks help align access governance, risk, and compliance?
A: NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and the OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 are useful anchors because they connect access control, accountability, and continuous protection. Teams should use them to structure ownership, review, and remediation so access governance is measured as a control chain, not a standalone audit task.
👉 Read our full editorial: Access management GRC is failing when teams work in silos
